Fuck the Sony RX1. Buy an Olympus Mju II and you’d be enjoying a 800% discount on the price of an RX1; that’s enough for a LOT of film, perhaps 1000 rolls including processing. RX1 owners will never shoot that much, and certainly won’t give as much care to each individual image. Film-shooting is different to digital, the moment people pick up anything with a screen, they become trigger happy and shoot shit.
This. An equal alternative to the MJU II is the Fuji XT1.
>>2785367
I keep missing focus with close subjects with my Mju II. Even when I use spot metering. I don't know what I am doing wrong.
You can't compare the two anyways. The RX1 isn't truly pocketable. But the RX1 has a better image quality.
Also I think the whole "with film you put more time and thought into subjects" thing is a meme. It's actually restrictive and an argument against film. Have you ever seen professional photographers work? They often used one roll of film for just one subject. Its better to take photographs from different angles and settings and pick the best later when you have time to think.
You get the optical (depth of field, etc) properties of full frame, but the entry cost is significantly lower; moreover, there’s almost zero depreciation in the price of the camera.
>>2785407
After some time the price of a digital camera stabilizes pretty much.
>>2785367
>TFW a Stylus was your first camera
Bought a Mju II a few days ago at a thrift shop for about $4. Haven't put a roll in it yet, but it seems to work perfectly. Looks like a neat camera.
>>2785367 (OP)
> perhaps 1000 rolls including processing
> RX1 owners will never shoot that much, and certainly won’t give as much care to each individual image.
You really let your jelly cloud your judgement. Even for the more expensive RX1R II, this just does not work out.
Besides, this camera is more like a RX100 at best, not like a RX1R II or something.
> Film-shooting is different to digital, the moment people pick up anything with a screen, they become trigger happy and shoot shit.
Yes, amateur film is like digital when you remove the extra photos that contained the best shots. With some additional losses to occasional development or handling mistakes.
Besides, if you want to have the glory that is digital post-processing and publishing, you'll probably do the typical film pleb shit and buy a $100-300 trash-tier Plustek or whatever home scanner and further wreck what little IQ you had to begin with.
There is just nothing terribly clever in this plan, unless you are a casual luddite shooter who only does a few hundred pictures a year and wants them printed to 10x15cm or such.
Otherwise, there is a myriad of compacts all the way up to the RX1R II which have better cost and performance for less work.
>>2785445
Bought a new one for €100 a year back. Totally worth it.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Olympus%20mju%20II&sort=interestingness-desc
>tfw looking for 35-40mm fast prime point and shit film compact
>Can't find a reasonable MJU II in my country or in working order
>Fuji Klasse and Rollei AFM's available.
Tell me, MJU users, what am I going to miss out on?
>>2785563
Those are excellent choices too. The Mju is just super tiny. Konica Big Mini should also be on your radar.
Anyone have any experience with a Nikon L35Af?
>>2785678
>Nikon L35Af?
No, but the lens is excellent
Thinking of getting the MJU II or Canonet QL17 III. The advantage of the MJU is that its smaller and more pocketable, the disadvantage is that its more expensive online. The advantage of the QL17 is that its got a wider aperture, the disadvantage is that its larger and its likely I would carry a lightmeter with me as well. What should I get?
>>2785678
>>2785994
And here is a completely inappropriate example of a shot.
Everything else I have from it has people in it, and you don't post people on 4our channel.
This was in daylight on tri-x or hp5, unfiltered, so it would be well stopped down, and I've applied my normal amount of sharpening to the scan, but it still seems to get a little smeary in the corners, and even the centre doesn't have the bite of other 35/2.8 compacts I've used.
ALSO, those wonky frame borders trigger me a little.
ALSO, hot tip for noobs, the sharpness of your frame borders is a good way to vaguely estimate the aperture your full auto camera has chosen.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2786039
>you don't post people on 4our channel
Eh, you're fine posting people on /p/. I can understand why you might not want to, but it's a slow board of people who are just argumentative and not actually malicious.
>>2786045
This is how we know you're a newfig: you don't consider the social stigma that attaches to people who are known to post on 4chan.
Posting on 4chan is like getting HIV; not a problem unless people find out.
Having an actual image of yourself posted on 4chan is also just as bad.
So damn good https://www.flickr.com/groups/mjuii/pool/
>>2786049
You are 100% correct
Just loaded my Mju II with some slide film, already snapshat away 1/3 of the roll. It's the best. Maybe one day I'll get a Contax T2 so they can play together.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 60D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2013:10:20 16:22:53 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Image Width 1024 Image Height 683 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2786069
I have one. The T2 is MUCH heavier and thicker
I like the idea of the Mju II, but couldn't justify the price. The Mju I seems to go for between £15-30 on ebay, while the Mju II regularly gets closer to £80-100. Given that both have similar faults like not remembering flash settings while turned off, the extra bit of light from the 2.8 vs. 3.5 didn't seem like a huge deal. The weather sealing is a bigger deal since I work outdoors, but even then it doesn't seem worth the extra price. If the gap in price was smaller it probably would be worth the difference, prices in the US in particular seem so crazily different to the ones in the UK.
That said, I'm still waiting for my new chemicals to arrive so I can see how my first Mju I roll came out. I've been let down massively by the XA before, and my Ricoh R1 was DOA. Just looking for a nice easy point and shoot for snapshotting and passing round at parties.
>>2786111
MjuII is worth that price over the MjuI for the thickness alone. You are more likely to use the MjuII because you can slip it into a pocket and forget about it. Don't only look on ebay, look on etsy and locally on camera forums and shops that sell used gear.
>>2786111
There's nothing wrong with the MjuI. Your pictures will still be amazing. MjuII is for when you only want the 35mm lens.
I have the Mju Zoom 140 (38-140mm), MjuII (35mm), MjuII Zoom80 (38-80mm) and the MjuIII Wide 100 (28-100mm). They are all excellent cameras.
>>2786111
I got both of mine for ~£40-50 each maybe 5 years back, have they really shot up in price that much?
>>2786114
The thickness doesn't seem too different but the overall size of the Mju II seems way smaller. One issue I've had is that if you want to put the Mju in your pocket so that you can pull it out with one hand and be ready to shoot, you have to be careful because the catch on the sliding door opens when I try to put the camera into my jeans pocket.
Pic 1/2 for size comparison.
>>2786116
My Mju I has the 35mm lens too, 35mm f3.5! The Mju line seems pretty big, but the smaller size of the prime models compared to the zoom is part of what attracted me to it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot Pro1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:05:29 13:43:18 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/6.3 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 19.97 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 480 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2786150
Yeah they have done, have a look on ebay. There's one at the minute with a broken door that's on for more than your models. I think it's down to blogs raving about them so people jack the prices up. Compare early articles about the Canonet QL17s to how it is now. The articles all talk about how cheap it is, and you'd be hard pressed to find one for the prices they talk about.
>>2786154
Pic 2/2 for size comparison.
>>2786155
>I think it's down to blogs raving about them so people jack the prices up. Compare early articles about the Canonet QL17s to how it is now. The articles all talk about how cheap it is, and you'd be hard pressed to find one for the prices they talk about.
It certainly is. If you look at a lot of "vintage" cameras. If you adjust prices for inflation. They're way above what they were. Some of this is down to less on the market due to broken models, but part of it is popularity due to blogs/articles/recommendations on sites.
>>2786069
I just compared my T2 with my MjuII and it's not thicker, just longer and taller. The T2 is blocky though. The Mju series is more organically shaped and feels half the size of the T2 in your hand or pocket. I use my Mju cameras more for that reason.
>>2786162
The Contax T2 and T3 price has doubled in the last 5 years thanks to blogs and forums. The Japanese ebay sellers price it for what they can get.
>>2786162
>>2786170
Bang on. It's interesting...I feel like some kind of lomography type movement was bound to happen at some point, it became inevitable when the good, cheap cameras became more expensive. People looking to get in on film photography on a real budget are left with less well made cameras. There are still some good, cheap cameras around, but they're becoming more rare I feel. It's far easier to get a slightly rubbish body with a lens that's "good when you stop it down!" than it is to find really nice cameras at more reasonable prices like the high end point and shoots, Canonets, even some of the nicer Pentax cameras. I do feel like great gear is worth good prices, but the inflation that happens in film photography can be way out of whack.
>>2786155
Maybe I should try to sell the one I dropped down the stairs... I mean, it probably still works if you don't mind the front slide coming off easily.
>>2785367
>not using Olympus XA
LOOOOOOL
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 259 Image Height 195 Scene Capture Type Standard
Why are the lenses on film cameras so much smaller than on digital? Take the RX1 and the Mju, the one on the Sony is huge compared to the former.
>>2786273
>Why are the lenses on film cameras so much smaller than on digital?
Because they're not as good.
Digital sensors magnify the flaws of optical designs, because things like low resolution, chromatic abberation, vignetting and corner smearing are immediately obvious.
Also, the manner in which a digital sensor detects light means that the ray angles leaving the lense can't be quite as acute as they can on film, which means they need to be further away or include large corrective elements at the rear of the lense.
>>2786233
>using a rangefinder
>not using autofocus
>>2786273
Miyazaki knows the answer
>>2786506
lol, no
because of mechanics.
An autofocus lens requires a much more complex assembly than a helicoid or a simple nut-and-bolt focus system.
The elements of the lens inside can get just as small. That's why pancakes for slrs an mirrorless tend to be very thin front to back, but still quite wide around for the af mechanism.
Canon EOS lenses are larger than FD lenses for the same reason, except for those terrifying FD AF lenses.
>>2786696
>An autofocus lens requires a much more complex assembly than a helicoid or a simple nut-and-bolt focus system.
No, that's totally wrong. Why would you even say that? Just think about it for a minute.
>>2786754
Okay anon.
Take apart one of each and reassemble it in the same or better condition.
Have fun.
I'd say that because I've done that btw. :)
>>2786754
>No, that's totally wrong
hahahahahahahah
"people are stupid, and like it" - I wish I remember when I first said that.
>>2786762
What a surprise, isi thinks she's an expert on AF mechanisms because she's tinkered with a tiny sample size of lenses.
>>2786696
>rolls eyes at classic isi comment
The question is probably more about why is the lense on the rx1 the size of a hockey puck when the lense on an L35AF is the size of a dice.
They're both 35mm "Sonnars" afterall.
Aside from the stop (at least) of speed, it's more to do with the relative complexity of the optical designs than it is to do with anything else.
They're both AF, with a built in shutter, after all :^3
>>2785367
>they become trigger happy and shoot shit
Fully willing to bet that if we had two photographers of equal skill, whether they are complete beginners or have thirty years of shooting behind them, one with a roll of film and the other one with a memory card of the same price, the top photographs of the latter would return much better results.
Film is for hipsters and people too lazy to go through the effort of selecting the best shots from a consider amount of data post facto.
>>2786991
I'm not an expert on af mechanisms at all.
I am pretty #awoke about manual focus lenses and their mechanical properties and workings. They're fundamentally quite simple except for Samyang because holyshittapeandplasticshims. You rarely even need special tools for most of them, at most just a spanner wrench.
Mechanical systems are inherently easier to figure out through logic and deduction than electronic or electro-magnetic ones. Even if you're well coursed in those topics.
>>2787029
>tries to use greentext to roleplay
>The question is probably more about why is the lense on the rx1 the size of a hockey puck when the lense on an L35AF is the size of a dice.
Because the lens' "guts" in the L35AF will be found within the body of the camera, as film occupies very little space in comparison to a digital sensor, its rear-end electronics, processor, the optics the particular lens uses to overcome the weakness the sensor has to a lens being so close to it, the LCD screen on the back, and the wiring for the controls.
All of which is incredibly obvious if you've ever looked inside of a camera.
>Aside from the stop (at least) of speed
Almost entirely because of it, if you consider the fact that *faster* optics typically need *more* corrections as a result; more glass if its done optically rather than in software.
>it's more to do with the relative complexity of the optical designs than it is to do with anything else.
And the fact that the recording medium in a digital camera is placed further forward than in a film camera, placed closer to the front of the body of the camera (relative to overall dimensions) to, again, accommodate electronics.
>>2787033
>Film is for hipsters
Okay kid
>>2787036
>All of which is incredibly obvious if you've ever looked inside of a camera.
Or even at the top of a digital camera where they have the "film plane" marker to show how it's usually more than half-way towards the front of any given mirrorless body.
>>2787166
It is. Using something worse because you think it has more soul is pretty much the core of a hipster.
>>2787179
Digital looks shit compared to film. You get the quality from film at 1/10th the cost of digital.
Deal with it
>>2787186
>Unprocessed digital looks like shit compared to film
Fixed that for you.
> You get the quality from film at 1/10th the cost of digital
Until you've taken about 2000 photos total.
Size comparisons
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix A600 Camera Software GIMP 2.6.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:05:11 16:49:39 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 4.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Auto Focal Length 8.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2816 Image Height 592 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Sharpness Normal White Balance Auto Chroma Saturation Normal Flash Mode Auto Macro Mode Off Focus Mode Auto Slow Synchro Mode Off Picture Mode Auto Continuous/Bracketing Mode Off Blur Status OK Focus Status OK Auto Exposure Status OK
>>2787188
Digital is far more detailed and much sharper than regular 35mm film. That im not arguing. But the way film renders colour tones, its dynamic range, and general aesthetic definitely surpasses digital.
Digital photography is over clinical in appearance and flat looking. Digital is only good for professional work in my opinion. For commercial use and personal enjoyment as a hobby then Id choose film anyday
>>2787198
*non-commercial
>>2787198
>definitely surpasses unedited digital.
Fixed it for you again. Don't worry, I don't mind helping.
>>2787201
edited digital still looks boring as fuck, just deal with it mate
>>2787204
>Poorly edited digital still looks boring as fuck, just deal with it mate
Man, you really need to check your posts before you hit submit! You're having all sorts of issues!
>>2787204
>poorly edited digital still looks boring as fuck
got it for you friendo
>>2787179
>Using something worse
Opinion discarded
>>2787204
Edited digital can look like literally anything, so if you're looking at digital photos that look boring, then you're looking in the wrong places.
And everyone understand what is meant by "digital looks boring" automatically, so you're not fooling anyone. Our eyes even do the automatic translation for us. Watch, I'll type the sentence, and your eyes will translate it for you:
"My photos aren't very interesting and the light is bad, but shooting it on film gives them interesting different tones than real life, and I mistake that for art and talent, but when I shoot digital, it just looks bland and flat and I don't know how to fix that, so I blame the medium for my lack of talent"
Crazy right?
>>2787209
>No detail
>boring colors
>Dust all over the fucking place
>Takes an eternity to be able to see your photos
>Expensive
>Limited to bright light
>Hope you enjoy your filing cabinet in your office to store your film
Yeah, worse.
>>2787204
>edited digital still looks boring as fuck
Seems like you just don't know how to edit your photos...
>>2787219
Saying that digital doesn't look as good as film is like saying that the food you make after going to the grocery store isn't as good as the food you can get from Olive Garden. You can get literally anything you want, and make any recipe you can think of. The limitation is your personal ability and effort.
>>2787215
>muh detail
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model CanoScan 9000F Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2014:10:09 14:12:16 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2363 Image Height 2984
>>2787225
>digital is better than film guys just learn to edit!
>yet even the images and videos from professionals that use high-end medium format cameras and video cameras don't look as good as film
>>2787190
Sweet collection!
bls do the same from the top?
>>2787225
No, you're wrong. Digital does not have the dynamic range of film, nor does it have the capability of recording colours and tones anywhere near the standard of film. Film can record 256 grayscales, or a corresponding 16 million colours.
Modern digital cameras get 8-12 bits of data for each pixel. Optical film scanners get 36 bits of information for each pixel. You do the math
>>2787232
Love the look of this! Reserve image search is showing me ultrasound scans of babies. I see the exif, but care to explain more about how you made this?
>>2786762
You've done everything. Even a few homeless guys.
>>2787387
So don't clip your highlights, and push up your shadows 5 stops. 14 stops is enormous.
>16 million colors isn't enough
Sure thing bud.
>>2787389
MjuII + Kentmere 100 in Diafine + Fomabrom 111 Neutral-black multigrade fiber-based paper + MOERSCH Lith Omega developer
>>2787552
Thanks! Seems like it's working well for you.
Film >>> Digital
>>2787387
> Digital does not have the dynamic range of film
This is the wrong way around. Film does not have the dynamic range of digital.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
> nor does it have the capability of recording colours and tones anywhere near the standard of film
Digital again wins that one, but I don't remember the article in question.
> Modern digital cameras get 8-12 bits of data for each pixel. Optical film scanners get 36 bits of information for each pixel. You do the math
Current DSLR and MILC like the RX1R II have 14bits *for each* of the R G B pixels, yes. Vs your combined RGB scan. *You* do the maths.
Never mind these pixels aren't in a lower resolution mush of "bigger" grainy chemically reacting particles that are somewhat unevenly distributed, but nicely separated at equally spaced points, so actually, they record more information in general.
>>2788273
>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
Clark from 1998 based his "tests" on output from a Sprintscan.
He "tested" dynamic range by using the Shadows +100 slider.
Troll harder, dude.
Anyone who's ever actually used negative film knows it will hold highlights for days.
>>2788287
> Clark from 1998 based his "tests" on output from a Sprintscan.
Yes, this was already years ago - we all know digital only got better.
> He "tested" dynamic range by using the Shadows +100 slider.
I assume you have better tests that involve numbers, then?
We can also do it like this:
Modern DSLR are *measured* (by DxO, and more) to have a dynamic range of over 13EV on the modern low-end... say, a A5000 or K-50 or D3200. Over 14EV -close to 15EV- on the high end.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape
The cameras also have individual graphs for more details on how exactly that works.
Common numbers I've seen for film negatives on the net are around 5-11EV of DR. Scientific numbers would be appreciated though, do you have some?
>>2788287
anyone with a working understanding of digital photography knows that the inverse is true for it, and that it can hold shadows for weeks.
Anyone with any brain at all understands that different mediums require different exposure techniques for milking maximum efficacy. On neg film, that means often overexposing because you know your shadow range isn't that hot but your highlights are hard to kill. On digital, that often means underexposing to favor your highlights, because you know that you can recover detail in the shadows 6-7 stops if necessary.
Anyone that presents either as having 'the best' dynamic range without mentioning the difference in optimal exposure between mediums can be immediately dismissed as clueless knuckledraggers simply aping their own preference.
Fuck outta here and learn some photography.
>>2788307
> On neg film, that means often overexposing because you know your shadow range isn't that hot but your highlights are hard to kill
Tolerance / latitude to overexposure is not the same as dynamic range, though.
It is my experience and understanding that digital is *simply better* in terms of DR.
>>2788313
>Tolerance / latitude to overexposure is not the same as dynamic range, though.
To an autist, no.
To someone where the end goal is in mind, its pretty much the same thing. How far you can recover your file or film is always something you should have in mind if technical details are a concern.
Always.
>It is my experience and understanding that digital is *simply better* in terms of DR.
it's *simply better* in the shadows, and you can tell looking at a digital print vs a film one under a loupe with very slightly exposed shadows.
the reverse is true in the highlights.
Dynamic range isn't level throughout, dude.
>>2788315
It is not at all the same.
It's like playing a drinking game where you have to juggle a ball or get punished. One thing -dynamic range- makes the ball slower and easier to deal with flawlessly (soccer ball -> air balloon), the other just lessens your punishment (0.2dl vodka -> 0.1dl vodka).
With the difference in DR being pretty big, why would you even bother with the punishment reduction?
Even the film negative DR + reasonable tolerance together is ultimately narrower on film than just the DR on digital, so basically, whether you rely on your own settings or the metering system of a camera, you have ultimately more tolerance until you truly fuck up extremely much (at which point the film's less harsh "punishment" will maybe help eventually).
> Dynamic range isn't level throughout, dude.
It isn't, but we were talking about which had the larger dynamic range before.
And it's just digital.
>>2788304
I put together a quick test for you.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1212 Image Height 800
>>2785367
diamond shaped aperture blades and focus zones instead of precise AF disqualify the mju from being considered a serious camera. still love it as a snapshit cam though. however, you can't quite say the rx1 is a snapshit cam
>>2788373
>With the difference in DR being pretty big, why would you even bother with the punishment reduction?
Because you're a photographer with real-world experience rather than a college drunk making analogies about beer pong on the internet. In the real world, sometimes you wanna see whats in the shadows without destroying your cloud detail.
All you are contributing to this conversation is noise. I'm not even arguing to the side of film having greater dynamic range, I am arguing to the concept of nuance which so many of you fail to maintain even a semblance of a grasp on.
The world is not sports. You do not have to pick a team to talk about something. Fuck off and allow nuanced conversation to occur. If you cannot contribute to a conversation with more nuance, it is unlikely your contribution is necessary. Listen instead.
>>2788494
THIS
>>2785379
>I keep missing focus with close subjects with my Mju II. Even when I use spot metering
Metering has nothing to do with focusing. Learn to camera and then you'll stop missing focus.
>>2788485
>diamond shaped aperture blades and focus zones
>muh excuses
You can make good photos with any camera.
>>2788485
youre a top grade clown m8.
>>2789217
no u
